Blog

Missouri universities and research organizations will need to cut about $100 million from administrative costs for research funded last year by the National Institutes of Health or replace the money from other sources if President Donald Trump’s attempt to reduce indirect costs is successful.

There were 1,553 grants worth $901 million issued by the NIH to Missouri institutions during the most recent federal fiscal year. The recipients reported spending as much as 30% of their grant on indirect costs to support their research.

The grants allow research into medical problems, such as pandemic preparedness or the control of infections acquired in hospitals. They also cover agriculture and veterinary research, like the Swine Resource Center at the University of Missouri, and public health problems such as how policies on E-cigarettes impact youth tobacco use.

A federal judge on Monday evening issued a temporary restraining order blocking the cuts in response to a lawsuit joined by 22 states, not including Missouri. The order covered all federal funding cuts made since Trump took office Jan. 20.

By far the biggest recipient of NIH grants was Washington University in St. Louis, which received 1,192 grants totaling $732 million, followed by the 162 grants worth almost $70 million to the University of Missouri’s Columbia campus.

Both universities spend well above the 15% cap on indirect costs set as the goal for NIH research under the new policy.

Other significant recipients of NIH grants in Missouri include St. Louis University, which received 63 worth $25.8 million; Children’s Mercy Hospital in Kansas City, which landed 26 grants worth $9.7 million; and the Stowers Institute for Medical Research, which received 19 grants worth $5.1 million in the most recent fiscal year.

Washington University reported it will have about $189 million in indirect costs for its grants, or about 26% of the total. The University of Missouri reported its indirect costs will be about $21 million, or 30% of the amount awarded.

In a message to the Washington University campus, Chancellor Andrew Martin said the campus administration is reviewing the new rule, which will “have a significant impact on institutions like WashU” and is working to get the new rule reversed.

“We’re mobilized on multiple fronts,” Martin wrote. “Our leadership team is closely reviewing the policy, and our government relations team is engaging with congressional representatives and others to ensure that they understand the consequences of these cuts and are encouraged to act to address this threat to research and its many benefits to society.”

To get indirect costs below 15% for the grants awarded in fiscal 2024, Washington University would have to cut about $80 million in administrative expenses or find it from other sources.

At the University of Missouri, indirect costs exceed the new threshold by about $10 million for the Columbia campus. There are a handful of grants for the other three campuses — University of Missouri-Kansas City, University of Missouri-St. Louis and Missouri University of Science and Technology in Rolla — that would add about $1.7 million to that amount.

The university system administration was unable to say Monday whether it would cut costs — likely resulting in job losses — or cover the shortfall from other resources.

NIH funding supports research in agriculture, biomedical sciences and advanced technologies at the university, according to a statement issued by University of Missouri spokesman Christopher Ave.

The change in indirect funding “would mean significant annual reductions in funding for our vital NIH-sponsored research that saves lives, creates jobs, enhances national security and improves quality of life for people in every part of our state and across the nation,” Ave said. Like Washington University, the UM System is working to get the decision reversed, the statement said.

“Our leadership is communicating with key stakeholders in government, the private sector, other universities and other communities,” Ave said.. “Leaders of our campuses have directed faculty and staff working on NIH and other federal grants to continue their important research and to keep submitting NIH proposals as well as other federal agency grants as we further assess the situation.” Missouri Independent

The Trump administration’s decision to slash overhead costs linked to federally funded research has sparked an immense backlash. But some doctors are praising the move, suggesting it will help “optimize” how taxpayer dollars are used when it comes to scientific research.

A new rule from the Trump administration that went into effect Monday, capped facilities and administrative costs, also known as “indirect costs,” at 15% for federally funded research grants provided by the National Institutes of Health (NIH). When a grant is awarded to a scientist by the NIH, an additional percentage, on top of the allocated research funding, goes to the facility housing their work to cover these “indirect costs.”

According to an announcement about the new funding cap from the Trump administration, that percentage has historically been around 27% to 28% for each grant. But in some cases, negotiated rates can be as high as 70 to 90%, according to doctors who spoke with Fox News Digital.

“If that money is cut to 15%, what that means is there’s actually going to be more grants given out to do science. You get more money back to the NIH to give out more science,” said Dr Vinay Prasad, a hematologist-oncologist and professor in the Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics at the University of California, San Francisco.

“It’s about time,” said Dr Erika Schwartz, the founder of Evolved Science, which is a concierge medical practice in New York City with more than 1,500 active patients.

“While infrastructure support is necessary, there’s room for more efficient cost management. A reformed funding model could redirect more resources to direct research activities while maintaining essential support services. This could potentially increase the number of funded research projects and accelerate medical breakthroughs, ultimately benefiting patients more directly.”

Prasad posited that universities and research institutions have negotiated “sweetheart deals” that allow them to rake in funds that sometimes aren’t even necessary to the research at hand. To demonstrate his point, he explained the numbers for a research institution that has negotiated a 57% rate for indirect costs:

“Let’s say I get $100,000 [for a research project] and I need a laboratory… I get $100,000, and then they still get the $57,000 to the university that goes to the administrators, and presumably the fact that I have a lab bench, and the lights, etc. But now let’s say I do the same $100,000 project, but my project is we’re going to analyze genomic sequences from an online repository. So, I just have a laptop… but they still get the $57,000 even though there’s literally no space being given to this person. There’s no bench, there’s no desk, there’s nothing.”

Prasad added that another “fundamental problem” with these negotiated rates is that the money is not formally budgeted, so “the American people don’t know where that money is going.”

“A famous researcher once said to me, an NIH dollar is more valuable than any other dollar because they can use it for whatever purpose they want. Although, nominally, they’re supposed to use it to keep the lights on and, you know, make the buildings run, but that’s not always the case,” he said.

David Whelan, a former healthcare writer for Forbes who has spent time working in hospitals and now works in the healthcare consulting space, echoed this concern in a post on X that claimed universities have used indirect research grant payments “to pocket money.”

“Indirects are just ways for wealthy academic hospitals to pocket money that their investigators won and then create slush for those who are incapable of getting funded on their own,” Whelan wrote. “It’s a huge grift and great place for cuts.”

The Trump administration’s cap on indirect funding associated with NIH research grants was immediately challenged in court with lawsuits from 22 Democratic state attorneys general and a cohort of universities, which argued the move will “devastate critical public health research at universities and research institutions in the United States.”

“Once again, President Trump and Elon Musk are acting in direct violation of the law. In this case, they are causing irreparable damage to ongoing research to develop cures and treatments for cancer, Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias, ALS, Diabetes, Mental Health disorders, opioid abuse, genetic diseases, rare diseases, and other diseases and conditions affecting American families,” said Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., ranking member on the House Appropriations Committee. “The Trump Administration is attempting to steal critical funds promised to scientific research institutions funded by the NIH, despite an explicit legal prohibition against this action.”

In response to the lawsuit from Democratic state attorneys general, a federal judge imposed a temporary restraining order prohibiting NIH agencies from taking any steps to implement, apply or enforce the new rule.

The judge’s order also required Trump administration agencies that are impacted by the new rule to file reports within 24 hours to confirm the steps they are taking to comply with the ruling. Meanwhile, an in-person hearing date on the matter has been scheduled for Feb. 21. Fox News

Apollo Diagnostics part of Apollo Group announced the launch of its newest diagnostic center located in Kukatpally, KPHB Road No 4. This marks the 120th patient care Centre in Hyderabad, underscoring Apollo’s commitment of expanding access to quality healthcare across the region.

The new facility, is strategically situated to serve the growing population from Kukatpally, Madhapur, Hitech city, JNTU and Miyapur surrounding areas. With state-of-the-art technology and a dedicated team of healthcare professionals, Apollo Diagnostics aims to provide timely and accurate diagnostic services that are essential for effective treatment.

To celebrate the opening, Apollo Diagnostics is offering exclusive prices for key health tests, including FBS/RBS/Cholesterol at just ₹10, HbA1C for ₹199, Vitamin D at ₹699, and Thyroid Profile also at ₹199. These offers reflect Apollo’s commitment to making essential diagnostics tests more accessible and affordable for the community. Business India Focus

On January 7, 2025, the US Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) issued draft guidance, titled “Artificial Intelligence-Enabled Device Software Functions: Lifecycle Management and Marketing Submission Recommendations” (the “Guidance”), that addresses management of cybersecurity risks affecting AI-enabled devices.

The Guidance supplements the FDA’s more general 2023 guidance, “Cybersecurity in Medical Devices: Quality System Considerations and Content of Premarket Submissions,” which contains recommendations for medical device makers with respect to designing and maintaining cybersecurity, and providing cyber details to the FDA in premarket submissions.

According to the Guidance, cyber threats that can specifically affect AI-enabled devices include: data poisoning (i.e., deliberate injections of inauthentic or maliciously modified data); model inversion and theft to infer details from or replicate models; model evasion (e.g., crafting input samples to deceive models); data leakage; overfitting; model bias through manipulation of training data or other exploits; and manipulation that could lead to “model performance drift” by changing the underlying data distribution, which degrades model performance.

The Guidance also advises AI-driven device makers to provide the FDA with premarket submission details and develop mitigation and management plans to address cybersecurity risks.

In light of the recent change in the US Presidency, changes and delays to the Guidance are anticipated. The Guidance is open for public comment until April 7, 2025. The National Law Review

The Gujarat government has made it mandatory for all healthcare institutions, including hospitals, diagnostic labs, and clinics, to register under the Clinical Establishment Act 2024.

The state Health Department has launched an extensive campaign to ensure compliance, with a deadline set for March 12, 2025. Institutions failing to register within the given timeframe could face penalties of up to Rs 5 lakh. As part of this regulation, all medical practitioners and healthcare professionals running clinics must also register.

Am officials said that the directive applies to allopathy, ayurveda, homoeopathy, and Unani medical institutions providing healthcare services.

As per the official data, as of February 11, 2025, a total of 16,698 healthcare facilities across Gujarat have completed either permanent or provisional registration.

Of these, 14,647 institutions have completed online registration, including 1,882 government and 5,268 private healthcare centres. The registered facilities include 12,028 allopathy hospitals, 1,622 ayurveda centres, and over 3,000 homoeopathy hospitals and clinics.

Additionally, 566 clinical laboratories, 28 dialysis centres, and various physiotherapy and dental clinics have been registered under the act.

The government aims to streamline healthcare operations, enhance service quality, and ensure accountability within the sector. With the approaching deadline, the Health Department urges all unregistered medical facilities to comply with the new regulation to avoid penalties and ensure uninterrupted operations.

The state now boasts 319 Community Health Centers (CHCs), 1,463 Primary Health Centers (PHCs), and 6,575 sub-centers, reflecting a 41 per cent increase in PHCs and a 37 per cent rise in CHCs since 2001-02.

Additionally, the number of medical colleges has grown from nine in 2001 to over 30 in 2023. The Gujarat Hospital Management Information System (GHMIS) reports that 35 hospitals are currently operational under its purview, with 17 being teaching hospitals.

Collectively, these institutions have recorded over 91 million outpatient registrations and approximately 9 million inpatient registrations. Despite these advancements, challenges persist. Healthcare services for the tribal populations in Gujarat remain inadequate, with reports of systematic exploitation by both legitimate and illegitimate practitioners.

Furthermore, disparities in maternal health services are evident across districts. For instance, the percentage of women receiving four or more antenatal care visits ranges from 56 per cent in Banaskantha to 95 per cent in Navsari. The Hans India